1.Everyone shall possess the right to freely express and publicise his thoughts in words, images or by any other means, as well as the right to inform others, inform himself and be informed without hindrance or discrimination
2.Exercise of the said rights shall not be hindered or limited by any type or form of censorship
Constitution of the Portuguese Republic, Article 37.º

Video: McCanns versus Amaral & Freedom of Speech

Exclusive video by Justice for Madeleine. After the final allegations in the Lisbon court, Gonçalo Amaral's lawyer, Dr. António Cabrita, speaks to the press before the McCanns press conference. More to follow soon. Taped on 11th February 2010.

Transcript

Vox populi: 'Long live Dr. Gonçalo Amaral'

Sandra Felgueiras: How do you interpret the fact that Isabel Duarte said that Ricardo Paiva, the Inspector requested by the defense, lied in this court?

Dr. António Cabrita: It's an opinion, it's respectable. Now if it is factuarl or consistent that's a different matter.

S.F.: But do you believe that could lead the judge to decide against you?

A.C.: I do not comment on opinions of colleagues. The right to an opinion is free in this outcry, that is what I defend, therefore Dr. Isabel Duarte, like any other citizen, have the right to opinion what they think.

Unknown Reporter: Gonçalo Amaral already said this afternoon that he would like the case to be re-opened.

A.C.: Which process?

U.R.: The process relative to the disappearence of Maddie.

A.C.: All of us would like that, to find out what really happened.

S.F.: Gonçalo Amaral said that he would like to constitute himself as an assistant. Legally, how is that possible? Is it possible for someone to be constituted as an assistant without presenting a new fact that allows the reopening of the process?

A.C.: Depends, if new facts are presented it's always possible to reopen the process.

S.F.: New facts, but could those facts be undertakings that were not carried out?

A.C.: Eventually, eventually. [nods affirmatively]

U.R.: Or it needs more than that?

A.C.: But on that issue I wont make any further comments. I don't know the process, except the DVD that was distributed.

S.F.: The reading of the verdict is on the 18th, is that it?

A.C.: On the 18.

S.F: Thank you.

A.C.: Good bye.

Soon

Gerald McCann: 'We would very much like the whole process reviewed, we would like that all the information held by all law enforcement to be put together and systematically reviewed and that they find areas for other investigations'.

S.F.: 'We were said that that notice that PJ received witch had inclusively photos from Madeleine or eventually from some child...'

G.M.: 'Pardon, sorry...' - turns head to another reporter, refusing to answer Sandra's question on what was divulged by Isabel Duarte during the accusation final allegations regarding photographs that she had found on the process at Portimão, of children similar to Madeleine (read here)

Gerry Mccann clearly ignored Sandra Felgueiras when he realised she was asking about the pictures mentioned by isabel duarte.Why?Was someone asking him something more important than that?Probably something like " How do YOU feel ? " .

I tried to pick up the question from Sandra but with her accent and the cutting of the footage it was not possible. Whatever it was Mccann did not like where it was going. So, he ignored her...just shows the kind of education he never had.

Joana you and your team must be exhausted thank you so much for all your work. I know we are all truly grateful.

I notice GM says he would like the process reviewed and information all law enforcement agencies have reviewed for further investigation. So no request from the McC's to re-open the case then. What an ignoranus he is not answering SF. Wonder why I D mention pictures?

If the case were reopened, wouldn't it be like waking up Sleeping Beauty ? The McCs, logically, would be arguidos again, a status they hated though they were, thanks to it, allowed to refuse answering questions.

''We are shitting ourselves big style because some bastard from the UK is obviously on to us, so I am calling for everyone to let us see exactly what you've got on us, erm I mean a review *cough* of all the evidence, so that we can redouble our efforts to find our beautiful daughter.......(embarassingly long pause)... Madeleine, in an effort to return her to the family who love her. Or failing that, us. oh shit, got to go, that Felgueiras bitch is heading this way....''

How totally ignorant was Gerry ? but then again I am not shocked ,did anyone catch Sandras full question?I caught Maddie and photos but didnt catch the rest ,Well done Sandra ,once again you have ruffled Mc Cann feathers!! they must really hate her ,They only said THEY want the case"re-viewing"as I think they know the chances of it being re-OPENED are getting closer and to save face ,and to further hoodwink the paying public they want it to appear to be THEIR idea ,but WE know different ,Thank you SO MUCH Joana and team ,get a good nights sleep tonight,you have earned it ,From an English Mother/Grandmother

The McCann's are getting closer to their worst nightmare and their own lawyer amy be making it happen! Someone in officialdom is going to have the opportunity to re-open the case and review and investigate - but not in the way the McCann's want, not by wild goose chases after false sightings but a proper investigation - the case seems to have been shelved to brush it under the carpet.

What does Gerry and Kate want people to do with all this information? does he want it sent to him and his bride(Sherlock Holmes and Watson)for them to sort out seeing as they are now in full charge of the case ?....I have just being pressing replay and listening very hard ,Sandra says "Pj recieved .....inclusivly photos of Maddie"missed the bit in the middle ,will keep trying

Are the McCanns being canned by a sardine muncher ? Why do I have this funny feeling that pilchards are going to taste much better than beluga does ? Anyway, for Madeleines sake I hope they cho.e on their next portion of oysters.Jamar

The Daily Mail article seems to have vanished, or am I not looking properly? I can't find it, I read it this morning and made a comment about it in one of Joana's entries, but now I wanted to read the readers comments and it seems to be gone. I even used the DM search facility, typed "Mccann" and it only delivered very old articles. Did C-Ruck go into action this afternoon?...

Its clearly come as blow for the McCanns that they are seen as the main suspects in the mystery by several police forces. They should sue them all. They will be desperate to find out what they cops have on file on them and the tapas or maybe better left under wraps?

@ LouiseGM doesn't hate Sarah, why would he ? She's a perfect oportunist and, though rather small, is very good at being on the front row and speaking louder than others !Yesterday, some italian journalist asked me, in Italian, to move away because she was working, not listening... I hesitated and said "No". But finally I managed a place for her.

It is still there type in mccanns in their search, click on most recent and it will appear.I left a message there yesterday, pondering, as it were, the reasons the mccanns objected to the book, i mentioned that i had read somewhere that it may be due to the statements made by the Gaspars........... you've guessed it it, was not published. Although the Mail appears to allow comments, they are still being overly selective.lindi

A comment I left, but was not published, was about the findings of the dogs, because I am sick of hearing the McCanns say there is no evidence, like we have to believe the dogs were a figment of the imagination.

They may not be able to use the dogs in court, but they sure are evidence enough for me, and would be for most people who heard about them, even though the McCanns have tried to discredit them.

If they are indicating Madeleine is dead, then, sadly, she is no more.

These best in the world dogs have never been wrong.

The cops also rely on them and trust them, and no McCann using the word 'ludicrous' in connection with them will change that.

The McCanns would be "delighted" if the case was reopened. What a word to use for a case concerning the disappearence of their daughter. Delighted? You might be delighted to receive an invitation to your favourite opera or to a football final, but about reopening a case where cadaver odour and blood that might belong to your daughter was found. Who are these people?

Post 42. Agree. The findings of the dogs are evidence enough for me too and I think they are for the majority. It is understood that someone close to the Mccans explained that the smelling of death scent on cuddlecat and Kate Mccann's clothes is owing to the fact that KM had been in contact to deaths the week previous to her holidays. So in that case the Mccanns do not discredit the findings of the dogs. On the other hand I don't understand why the Mccanns oppose if they really want to know what has happened to their daughter.

If they dont manage to silence everyone and find a suitable,preferably deceased patsy before Gordon and Socrates lose control then there is a real danger of the case being reviewed and re-opened by the authorities who are genuinely seeking the truth at some future date.

‘Are you aware that in not answering the questions you are jeopardizing the investigation, which seeks to discover what happened to your daughter?KM: "Yes, if that's what the investigation thinks." ‘

An observation.

In all of the comments statements made by the McCann couple in the past many months, never did they say they were ’requesting’ the case be re-opened. Never since their daughter vanished have they in any of their many press campaigns (usually involving C. Mitchell, PI’s) impressed strongly or otherwise that they would ‘very much like the case to be re-investigated’ much less that they had made any official request.

They always stated that ‘we are the only ones looking for her.’ This done, I think, to portray the PJ as the baddies who had stopped the search.

From Lisbon in the video clip, Gerry McCann does not say they have ‘requested/or taken any action’ to have the case be re-opened only that - ‘they would very much like the process to be re-investigated.’

In their Christmas message on their blog they don’t mention the police:-

“Whilst it has been left for us as Madeleine's parents to find our daughter, there is no doubt that our chances of finding her are much greater with the eyes, ears, hearts and minds of the general public assisting us.”

--They appear to feel that the eyes, ears, hearts and minds of the general public are more relevant to those of an official police team.

Why not on this blog did they send out the message to the public, that they feel aggrieved that there is no official police investigation, tell the public that they will leave no stone unturned in this regard? That they will fight to the death to have it re-opened, that they have their lawyers working on this as they tapped at their keyboard? That it was crucial to have the eyes, ears and minds of the police involved. That it was detrimental to the search for their daughter not to have the police involved, just as they suggested it was detrimental to the search to have Mr. Amaral’s book on sale.

I leave out the ‘hearts.’ When I hear this couple speak of heart, or hear them say that they know that ‘people care about children’ it is too much coming from people who clearly showed they had no heart and did not care enough to look after care and protect properly their three children.

If heart was all it took to recover the child, she would have been back the instant the public heard of her vanishing. There was and is no shortage of heartfelt sadness amongst the public for this child. If heart was all it took, the child would not have been left alone. That is heartless. These parents have so much to answer for, and to-date have not!

The sadness and the anger the public feel does not stop at the fact the child mysteriously disappeared when in the “care” of her parents, or of her terror and suffering if alive, it extends to the actions of this couple from the moment we knew that the child was missing. Their behaviour and actions have at times most definitely hindered the police investigation. And there is not a parent on the planet I would think who can understand why this is so.

Why then have they not demanded that this case be re-opened as his child is vulnerable? Why did he and his wife not recognise that each and every night they left these children in an unsecured property that they were vulnerable? Why have they not thrown themselves at the feet of the authorities and begged for this case to be re-opened?

Does he only recognise ‘vulnerability’ when it suits his cause?

He spoke of the vulnerability of the child in relation to a libel action. Kerching kerching!

Not such an impassioned speech when speaking of having the case reviewed: he would:

‘very much like the case reviewed?’

When your child has been missing almost three years, you would ‘very much like?’ the case to be reviewed?

I’d say you would, by now, have ripped the off the heads of those who you considered able to make this happen. That you would have raised this subject around the world on the many trips you had made, let everyone know how hard you were trying to have the case re-opened. That you would have the highly paid lawyers working on this 24/7!

Kate McCann said in her blog in reference to a reconstruction of events:

“ Gerry and I were still arguidos and as such would have attended for a reconstruction. Some key witnesses (including some of our friends)declined to attend the planned reconstruction as they were not CONVINCED OF THE AIMS AND USEFULNESS OF IT. In particular, as the reconstruction was not to be shown to the media (and hence the general public), they did not feel it would help to find Madeleine. Had the intention been to show it to the general public, it may have 'jogged' memories and encouraged people to come forward with information. It should be added that other key witnesses were not invited to attend.”

Gerry in his police statements agrees with his friends as to the ‘usefulness’ of such a diligence?

That is hardly leaving ‘no stone unturned’ now is it?

Do we take it if the case is re-opened that they are:

1. ALL now prepared to take part in a reconstruction?2. They won’t put up opposition to any suggestion of a reconstruction of events if not done in the manner they want i.e. to be broadcast on t.v?3. Their eyes have now been opened to the USEFULNESS of such a diligence?4. They no longer feel that any request for them to do so would not be for the purpose of the Portuguese authorities framing them as was spoken of in some of the police statements?

They appeared more concerned that they would be implicated at that time. Not really that they could not see the usefulness of the diligence in helping the missing child. That would appear to be only an excuse, and a lame one at that considering a child’s life was at stake. I Do we take it also, that they have all found their hearts?

Well let us all hope so! As to-date not a one of them has shown that they care.

I don't know which photos Sandra F was referring to, but there are some very peculiar photos in the PJ files. In previous posts, i have asked anyone with a knowledge of photography to have a look at the greyscale (whatever that means) photos- vol3 apenso V111 page 5 and give an opinion.

“Mr Amaral's book and DVD contains some information from the PJ files but there is a lot in the files which is not in Mr Amaral's book. Hence it is highly selective and therefore biased. Mr Amaral's book contains his opinions rather than fact. His opinions differ from the findings in the PJ file. The conclusions of the latter are: 1. there is no evidence that Madeleine is dead and 2. there is no evidence that Gerry or I are involved in Madeleine's disappearance. This is very different to the theories and conclusions of Mr Amaral. It is logical and common sense that spreading these theories as Mr Amaral did (and continues todo) damages the search to find our little girl. If the general public (and the Portuguese people in particular) are bombarded day in and day out with such theories, this will eventually 'colour' their understanding and judgement -lies and inaccuracies become fact. If people subsequently believe that Madeleine is dead and that we are involved in her disappearance then they will not look for Madeleine, will not consider any suspicions about others which they may have and will not come forward with information. We consider this highly detrimental to the search for Madeleine.”

As I said, not doing a reconstruction and not answering police questions, not co-operating with official authorities was detrimental in my estimation to finding their child.

There is every possibility that had they fully co-operated with police that the mystery of as to how and why this child vanished would have been solved.

What I find rather strange is that she states, if the public think Madeleine is dead AND that THEY are involved, that the public would therefore not look for the child.

How very wrong this is madam McCann! The public will continue to be diligent no matter what, and in fact, it could perhaps be said that if they thought this couple, the parents of the child were responsible in some way (other than the obvious neglect of the children) that it might anger them so much and make them more diligent, as we all despise anyone who hurts children. When it is their own flesh and blood who harms them (as is often the case) it only makes the public more angry and determined that they be brought to justice. I don’t think madam McCann should underestimate the public so. They public will fight for justice for this child, no matter who the perpetrator of the crimes against her.

The public do not physically search, not now. The parents never physically searched at any time!

Why would anyone stop being diligent if they thought a child was dead?

The child’s body would still require to be found, so that it could be properly laid to rest, her soul at peace. For her family too, to know this to find whatever comfort they could in this knowledge.

And why would anyone as Kate McCann said, NOT want the case to be re-opened? Why would she say this? Some had their own agendas for this she stated.

She also stated that Mr. Amaral's followers had their own motives.She asks for help on one hand from he Portuguese people and insults them with the other.

She said in her blog also:

“There are few points which have been raised in the last few days which I would like to address specifically:

Abduction theory:For us, there is only the abduction theory possible because we were not involved in Madeleine's disappearance and we know Madeleine did not wander off by herself.It is obvious and right that the police should consider other theories initially.”

How very true, what Kate describes as the 'LIES AND INACCURACIES made by Mr. Amaral, they may just, in a re-viewed case, situation be proven as FACT!

Only recently the McCann’s said that they had not found anything in the files that was helpful, nothing new.

If they propose to request the case be re-opened and have not any new information, that would seem to me then, that this same request could have been made at any time in the past, which begs the question - why did they not do so?

Or are these photos which were mentioned, the ones which look similar to Madeleine (not Madeleine, but similar to her) their grounds for re-opening, or indeed is this a red herring as Kate would say. She know all about them it would seem.

Doesn't matter to me, and I suspect it doesn't matter to anyone else how this case comes to be re-opened, as long as it is!

I think also what we must remember that McCann's often in response to what bloggers have said previously, come up with statements like they did re ‘very much liking the idea of the case being re-opened.’ They generally fizzle out thereafter, having served their purpose, that is, of shaping any news reports which follow their public appearances! They very much cover their tails in this regard.

You can read this couple like a book........funnily enough! Woof Woof!

From #31:Thanks to all who provided the link to the Daily Mail article, but it still does not work, at least not for me. I tried it twice and it directs to the front page of today's DM. Courtesy of Carter-Ruck, for sure!Thank you for trying, I wish you all a nice day!

Quite right, how can they say on the one hand the evidence of the dogs is unreliable i.e. sniffing out the smell of cadaver scent to do with Madeleine, but then on the other hand give a reason as to why cadaver scent was picked up. If you acknowledge that you were near 6 bodies and give this as a reason, that the dogs picked up a scent, then the dogs must be reliable. They can't have it both ways.

Antonio Cabrita seems to be such a decent man, polite and honest and courteous to the journalists speaking to him. Just like his client in fact. What a contrast to the arrogant posturing of Gerald McCann and his sidekick Mitchell, who betray their ignorance and boorishness every time they open their mouths.

I also left a message on the Daily Mail, saying that I felt the shadows on the photo of Madeleine and her sibling were odd and of different intensity. No, it wasn't printed.

Thank you Joanna, Astro, Goncalo for your enormous and tireless efforts and also all posters and translators.

It is this perpetual, ceaseless effort that will eventually see justice for Madeleine and send a message further abroad, that however much crime one might wish to get away with, there will always be someone looking on who won't allow that to happen. I am British, living in France and posters come from far away from Portugal. The search for human justice is without boundaries.Forca !

@15 (bridget) i love your quote, and did you just read Gerry's mind?? that is exactly how it looks and i love it!!! they have had a bloody easy ride for nearly 3 years lets start to see the tide turn now on them,they will regret the day they tried to take on the force of Amaral and i am so pleased.(good luck Amaral you certainly have a lot of people behind you, please dont think all British people think of you as what our press and the Mccann's say)

poster 58 ,you are right,its either one thing or another,it cannot be both,but did Kate take these 6 bodies on holiday with her and put them behind the sofa?in the wardrobe?in the car? they must think we are idiots !!

@ Anonymous 51I asked GM "why don't you do a reconstruction ?" There was a short silence, I'm sure he heard though he didn't move his head (I was behind him, rather close), then he answered another question.Some minutes after I asked "porque não fazem uma reconstituição ?" to ID. She turned her head, like threw her pale eyes on me and replied "it had nothing to do with her, she wasn't their lawyer at that time".

aacg#66 I cannot find the link that you are giving either. I find nearlly all the "black and white" pics impossible to decipher. Only the grayscale ones of Payne with two girls on his knees are the most decipherable.